I find theists and atheists can never really understand one another (as sad as that is) because in the end they are respresenting competing claims (and they do no neccesarily hide this) they both hold as ‘true’ about the realities they live in.
In conclusion, one side must lean towards the other in order to make room for discussion or agreeance must occur for one side to feel they are ‘right’ and feel some justification for their stance. Both sides that want a discussion do this.
Truth is – you cannot prove God – so we can discuss any and everything under the sun after this claim is made (which is logical and also a justification for the atheist). Someone made the claim we all use ‘faith’ (in the sense of ‘trust’) – so for the theist this is also justifcation for their side. Convo continues.
Luke lables this as ’searching’ – we all must continue in this process…and this is the middle ground for both sides…or is Luke making a point that an atheist has to concede some ground to make discussion? Convo continues.
Fact is, all of us have a story that differs from one another and we want to put the facts of any issue outside of that reality (our biases being as limited as we can make them). This is common ground also – and we all admit to having bias in our thinking in some way. Convo continues.
I find, as a theist, I really don’t care if an athiest believes in God or not – and this is pretty much the norm for the athiest towards the theist. I think we like the discussion because it helps us learn and defend our points better. It’s maybe a search for the truth on some level but in essence do we really care about any of this?
***Comment taken from Sabio Lantz’s blog ‘Misunderstanding Each Other’